I Don't Owe the Military Anything

Lewrockwell.com ^ | January 29, 2004 | Brad Edmonds

[dixiepatriot]

I Don't Owe the Military Anything

by Brad Edmonds

I get impassioned emails from readers who are military veterans or relatives of military veterans, saying, in essence, "You go ahead and say your terrible things. The men and women of the armed forces will continue risking their lives to defend your right to say it." These readers claim that the only reason I'm free to say the things I do, and the reason I owe the military all sorts of my money, is because the military has for 200 years defended my freedom all over the world.

I say, Hogwash!

First, let me distinguish between "the military" and "the men and women." The "military" is the administrative unit that constitutes the careers of millions in the US, and gobbles up a huge chunk of our federal budget. The "men and women" are individuals, all of whom entered the military for personal reasons. Such people are often honorable individuals. My father served 25 years in the Air Force, running accounting and finance operations, and was so successful that even as a lowly major, two- and three-star generals sought his advice and ignored his bosses. Yes, I'm proud of my dad, and of his record.

I still don't owe the military anything, and my case is based on two facts: (1) That these men and women served does not create a positive obligation on my part to pay for their medical care or anything else (it is dishonorable, by the way, when women are involved in any way in combat; chivalrous men would not have women serve except in administrative and medical positions, far away from combat). (2) The military has failed in its duty to protect our freedoms.

With regard to (1): Most, probably nearly all, in the military entered for personal reasons, not just to "protect our freedoms." I entered the CIA for adventure, an income, and federal benefits. This would apply to most, particularly those in the most dangerous and glorified jobs (Seals, Rangers, etc.). I did not ask these people to serve, just as nobody asked me to serve in the CIA; and the only people whose report of self-sacrifice I believe are those who accept salaries far below their potentials. How many Wharton MBA or Harvard law graduates run to the military? I'm prepared to accept the self-sacrifice testimony of careerists in the Salvation Army and the YMCA. Anyone else enjoys too many personal benefits for me to accept much of the "selfless" claim.

With regard to (2), I have three questions:

If the military is supposed to be defending our freedoms in the US, why is all the action in other countries? The only foreign action the US has seen is Pearl Harbor, into which the Japanese were goaded by FDR with his full knowledge and intent, as has been declassified only recently; and 9/11, which was most plausibly retaliation for 40 years of bombing women and children in the Middle East. I would be more willing to believe that the military was about defending our freedoms if they would limit themselves to defending our borders, and if they would do so successfully. Remember, on 9/11, the military couldn't even defend the Pentagon.

It is much more plausible that the military is merely a tool for Congress and the White House to enact their foreign-policy desires. "Defending American interests abroad" explains the last 200 years far better than "defending freedoms at home." Unfortunately, Congress and the White House lost track of the fact that entangling alliances with none, and free trade with all, furthers individual Americans' interests more successfully than the policy we've embraced since Jefferson: Entangling alliances with whomever, free trade only with those with whom we have entangling alliances.

Second question: If the military has done such a great job of defending our freedoms at home, why do we need a Department of Homeland Security? Wasn't the Department of Defense supposed to provide defense? Instead, the Department of Fatherland Defense is an open, if unwitting, admission that the Department of Defense is in reality the Department of Offense, going abroad to force Congressional and White House foreign policy on whomever they want, whether the foreign party is willing or not. Just as one example: Hussein is accused of killing some 185,000 of his own countrymen. The Sudan is accused of killing perhaps 2 million. Why select Hussein for regime change? The 9/11 connection and WMDs (the only ones of which Hussein ever had he was given by the US to begin with) have both proven false. Oil interests are a much more plausible explanation.

Finally, if the military were doing such a great job of defending our freedom, why do we have so much less of it than we had in 1787? In 1865? In 1912? In 1932? In 1960? Our freedoms, particularly our property rights (specifically, our right to our own earnings) have been eroded dramatically. Our tax burden, approaching 50% for those of us who pay taxes, is monstrously larger than it was in each of those other years. The military has done nothing to keep Congress and the White House from treating us as chattel slaves. Again, that the military exists for the benefit of the White House and members of Congress explains military events and outcomes of the last 200 years far better than "defending our freedom" does.

An additional note: It is by this point uncontroversial that our freedoms would have been better defended without a standing military. The founders knew it; and Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto knew it, saying, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." He didn't say you should not, or that it would be costly or difficult. He said "you cannot." The gun rights we had then have only been eroded since, hence the military has done nothing for the real power of the US to defend itself.

I'm sorry that so many honorable military men and women have been misled. I'm sorry that so many believe they fought for our freedoms. I'm sorry that a smaller, but significant, percentage of those believe that I personally owe them an involuntarily-taken chunk of my income. Morally, I do not owe them this. I did not ask them to do what they did; they already have been, and are being, paid; I believe my freedom has only been eroded, not enhanced, by their presence; and I believe my actual personal safety is more threatened by their existence, not less, as a result of how they have been used by Congress and the White House.

I don't idolize, but I do admire those 99% of the members of the armed forces who have served honorably. But I owe them nothing.

January 29, 2004

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds177.html

[spunkets]

In Orwell's scenario the threats were conjured up. In today's reality, the threats are real. There happens to be an extensive clash of wills, between several foreign intrests and the intrest of Freedom.

[cynicom]

The author turns himself into a pretzel, wanting to denounce the military and its PEOPLE, yet he has not the courage to come up front with his denouncement. He has to qualify himself by using his father as a shield. Idiot.

[Tallguy]

Re: 40 years of (US) bombings in the Middle East?!

I seriously doubt that this writer is what he claims to be -- a CIA veteran -- since I'm sure that he can't point to a US "bombing" in the Middle East taking place any time between 1964 and Reagan's Libya Raid.

If you ask me, the US has shown remarkable restraint -- up till now that is...

[Axenolith]

I had a friend in high school who had most of his earlier extended family killed in the Warsaw Ghetto and another who had a 3 inch folder of the Nazi stamped identity and immigration documents from the time an American uncle undertook a dangerous and lengthy journey to remove his relatives from Nazi occupied Lithuania. Needless to say, both understood a little more about freedom that the average "young skull full of mush" at that age...

[geedee]

Let me make sure I understand this Edmonds jackass. He says this about his service in the CIA . . .

I entered the CIA for adventure, an income, and federal benefits.

Adventure, income, and federal benefits. Okey-doke. I got it.

Now he says this about military veterans . . .

That these men and women served does not create a positive obligation on my part to pay for their medical care or anything else . . .

So . . . patrician punks like him can join the CIA for federal benefits, and expect them to be paid, but military veterans who joined the military for the federal benefits (GI Bill, health care, etc.) shouldn't expect for their country to "really" follow through with the promises the veteran was given when he or she joined?

Yup, typical socialist jackass. I only have one thing to say about or to Mr. Edmonds . . .

[Cultural Jihad]

Right.This article proves we are free to write anything.

Even George Soros!

[muskogee]

I bet the author can't stand to watch "Tactical to Practical" on the History channel.

[OldSmaj]

I don't idolize, but I do admire those 99% of the members of the armed forces who have served honorably. But I owe them nothing.

Hmmm. Should I or shouldn't I?

Yeah, I guess I should. Listen pogey-bait, I'm speaking as one those that you owe nothing to: I didn't ask for anything from you, in the first place, you stinking REMF.

I served because I got paid reasonably well to do things that I enjoyed doing. Others may call it what they wish, I called it a job. I didn't fail at it, either. Your stinking ass is still around to spew this crap, ain't it?

Thanks for paying your taxes, so that I could be paid, but otherwise, I really don't give a damn if you live or die.

In fact, you mealy-mouthed wanna-be spook, your type is the same type that did nothing but piss me off day after day, anyway, since all you could do was postulate and present your silly-ass pipe dreams based upon your fabricated imaginings, with no other purpose than to make a pitiful attempt to justify your own job. Good and honorable men died for your Clancy imaginings.

Your type wasted my time and talents on many occasions, with your Cold War crap and the constant doom and gloom crap that never existed.

You would have been better off just keeping your idiotic mouth shut. Tis better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and verify the suspicion.

CIA, my ass. The good ones don't go around spouting this crap. If you knew half of what you think you know about why someone serves, you wouldn't be wasting your time writing your silliness for Lew Rockwell forums.

But, you, you ignorant James Bond wannabe, you don't know diddly about your subject, best you go back to writing assessments of non-existant planned invasions of Bora-Bora or whatever it is you ring-knocking, joe college CIA dipshits do.

[geedee]

Lord, grant me patience with idiotic rantings and ravings from the clinically insane.

[Richard Kimball]

I cannot comment further and maintain civility.

[dighton]

Brad Edmonds in Pravda, giving himself a medal for "courage."

[Tallguy]

I entered the CIA for adventure, an income, and federal benefits.

It's "bureaucrats" like this guy at CIA that were as surprised as the rest of America on the morning of 9/11. Perhaps if HE had done his job better, we wouldn't be in the mess that he himself outlines.

My criticism of the writer, and the CIA may not be "fair", but it is only as fair as his critique of the Military. Mr. Edmonds should not sleep at night after he cashes his CIA retirement paycheck -- he evidently did little to earn it.

[general_re]

When every citizen disagrees with any proposed self-expansion of government, the government probably won-t expand. It-s when citizens are largely in agreement with any aspect of government expansion that government expansion becomes the most extensive and the most likely to be permanent. We-re told "those people must be punished, even if it means taking innocent lives abroad." This implies that we don-t think the perpetrators should be punished...

Medal earned for brave defiance in the face of enemy apostrophes...

[BlueLancer]

Yo, Brad ... when they take away your crayon and lettered building blocks, then you can whine about the black-shirted, jack-booted thugs tyrannizing you. As long as you're still outside of a prison cell writing this stuff, it's sort of hard to believe that you're so oppressed ...

[MEG33]

The CIA,the UN inspectors,the intelligence communities in "old Europe" aren't looking good right now They got it wrong on Iraq,Iran,Libya ,and NKorea.They also got the USSR fall wrong.

[XJarhead]

You mean "good points" like this one:

The military has failed in its duty to protect our freedoms.

I'm not sure what this buffoon thinks, but it is not the responsibility of the military to regulate domestic law enforcement. Nor is it the responsiblity of the military to determine the particular military actions in which it will engage. In essense, the author is blaming his carpenter because his car broke down. Why he decided to make the military the pin cushion for his diatribe is a complete mystery to me.

[BlueLancer]

ARTHUR: Well, we all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about. If only people would hear of--
ARTHUR: Please! Please, good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one lives there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...
ARTHUR: Be quiet! DENNIS: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, how did you become King, then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,...
[angels sing]
...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up, will you? Shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

[geedee]

But, you, you ignorant James Bond wannabe, you don't know diddly about your subject, best you go back to writing assessments of non-existant planned invasions of Bora-Bora or whatever it is you ring-knocking, joe college CIA dipshits do.

Here! Here, Sergeant Major! You tell him.

I thought you would find this interesting. Here's part of another article Mr. Edmonds evidently thinks he's an expert on. It's titled Horsepower King and deals with cars. Evidently, Mr. Edmonds thinks damn highly of his own intelligence . . . or he just keeps throwing cacca at the wall, hoping to one day get a paying job writing -- there's a "beggar link" at the bottom of the article for donations.

I only cite the first paragraph . . .

The horsepower wars will continue – fortunately for us – but for the time being, there is a champion. Among all the Mustang Cobras, Corvettes, the new Nissan 350Z (an excellent value in a fast sports coupe, not far behind a Corvette at $20,000 less), and the turbocharged 500-hp Mercedes sedans and coupes, there is a single winner: Honda.

Horsepower wizard to political guru to military genius to master strategist to armchair philosopher . . . Edmonds' ego is writing checks his hummingbird accomplishments don't back up.

I don't know if you saw his photo at the bottom of the Horsepower article but he sure looks young to have "retired" from the CIA. And if he didn't retire . . . then what federal benefits could he have coming? Methinks the jackass was probably fired.

[buzzsaw6]

*If the military is supposed to be defending our freedoms in the US, why is all the action in other countries?*

Brad, Brad, Brad....
You shoot the gators before they get to the boat.

*...if the military were doing such a great job of defending our freedom, why do we have so much less of it than we had in 1787? In 1865? In 1912? In 1932? In 1960?*


Brad, Brad, Brad....
When last I read the US Law is made by Congress and the courts. I don't necessarily agree withsome of them, but I have taken an oath to protect and defend same. The military (I still serve proudly) doesn't make law, only upholds it.

*It is by this point uncontroversial that our freedoms would have been better defended without a standing military.*

Brad, Brad, Brad...
Uncontroversial? Pick which language and culture you would have preferred: Japanese, German or Soviet. Lets talk about the past.
Major Buzzsaw
USAF

[HRoarke]

"Watery tart" is one of my favorite lines from the movie...until they mock the French.